[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sagar Alias Babblu Alias Fajul vs State Of Haryana on 18 April, 2026
CRM-M-9742-2026 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
207 CRM-M-9742-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision : 18.04.2026
Sagar @Bablu @Fajul
..... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present : Mr. Davneet Sangwan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Deepali Verma, Asst. A.G. Haryana.
*****
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.
This petition for bail is the second petition, filed by the
petitioner under Section 483 of 'the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023'. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.266 dated
28.10.2023, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 302,
460, 120-B and 34 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Radaur, District
Yamunanagar. The first petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed as
withdrawn by virtue of order dated 25.02.2025.
2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of
'Raj Kumar', hereinafter being referred to as 'complainant' only. It was
stated by the complainant that his elder brother, Raja Ram, aged about 65
years was a monk for the last more than 25 years, and that he was staying in
Hanuman Temple situated at Sangipur picket. According to complainant,
Raja Ram used to sleep in the premises of abovementioned temple itself, and
CRM-M-9742-2026 (O&M)
that on 28.10.2023 at about 01:30 pm, he received a message that gates of
the temple were bolted from inside. As per complainant, in view of
abovementioned information, he reached the temple, along with his family
members, where police officials were already present. According to
complainant, his son Mohan opened the main gate of the temple, from
inside, by scaling the wall, and thereafter, it was found that latch of the room
of his brother Raja Ram was open, and he was lying on the floor in a pool of
blood. As per complainant, blood was oozing out of the head of his brother,
and he had already passed away.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that acting upon the
abovementioned complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the
investigation taken up. According to the prosecution, during the course of
investigation on the basis of secret information, the accused, namely Sagar
(the petitioner herein) and Abhishek, were arrested, who on interrogation
suffered their respective disclosure statements and implicated Rajesh Kumar
@Teli. As per prosecution, Rajesh Kumar @Teli had hatched the conspiracy
to commit robbery, with the help of other accused, and in the
abovementioned process, committed murder of the brother of complainant.
4. Notice of motion.
5. Ms. Deepali Verma, Asst. A.G. Haryana appears on behalf of
respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed
with. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the
petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by
the State. However, the learned State Counsel has orally opposed the present
petition.
CRM-M-9742-2026 (O&M)
6. Heard.
7. It has been contented on behalf of the petitioner that the
petitioner is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of
crime, and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. According
to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has already suffered a lot
of agony for being in custody for a period of more than two years and five
months, and that the trial is taking place at a very slow pace. As per learned
counsel for the petitioner, nothing has been left to be recovered from the
possession of petitioner, and that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-
up is not likely to serve any purpose.
8. The learned State Counsel has controverted the
abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, although
the instant case is a case based on circumstantial evidence, yet there is quite
cogent, consistent and reliable evidence against the petitioner comprising of
the testimony of petitioner and his co-accused. As per learned State Counsel,
the disclosure statement of co-accused, which led to discovery of fact
pertaining to the present case, is admissible in evidence. The learned State
Counsel has further contended that in view of gravity of offence committed
by the petitioner, he is not entitled for the benefit of bail.
9. The record has been perused carefully.
10. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are
the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a
decision: -
CRM-M-9742-2026 (O&M)
i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more
than two years and five months;
ii) that the co-accused of the petitioner, namely 'Rajesh Kumar
@Teli' and 'Mohinder @Abhishek', have already been
accorded the benefit of bail;
iii) that no legally admissible evidence, against the petitioner, has
been collected by the Investigating Agency;
iv) that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession
of petitioner;
v) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future;
vi) that the detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup is not
likely to serve any purpose;
vii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail,
the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the
witnesses; and
viii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail,
the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial.
11. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of "Dataram versus State of
Uttar Pradesh and another", 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are also
relevant, wherein it has been observed that "a fundamental postulate of
criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby
that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there
are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an
accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and
does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences.
Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of
CRM-M-9742-2026 (O&M)
bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a
correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an
exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been
lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being
incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our
criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or
denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but
even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large
number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the
country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying
bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the
circumstances of a case".
12. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of
India in the case of 'Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation and Another', (2022) 10 SCC 51, are also relevant in this case.
In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that "the rate of conviction
in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor
weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a
negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being
nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to
legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which
is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial.
On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a
case of grave injustice".
CRM-M-9742-2026 (O&M)
13. Recently, in the case of 'Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh', 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India has observed that "if an accused is to get a final verdict after
incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then,
definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article
21 of the Constitution has been infringed". It has also been observed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that "delays are
bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and
for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the
masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides
many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed
efficiently".
14. To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and
fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable,
fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated
by Hon'ble Apex court in "Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and
Another", 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.
15. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors,
involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a
conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail, and that the
present petition deserves to be allowed.
16. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the
case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered
to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the
CRM-M-9742-2026 (O&M)
satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovementioned concession
shall be subject to following conditions:-
(i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts
to the Court or to any other authority;
(ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish
the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change
in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial;
and
(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission
of the trial Court.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
18.04.2026
Gaurav Thakur
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
